How does the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix affect 112(f) interpretation?
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC significantly impacted the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to MPEP 2181: “The Federal Circuit has stated that the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is overcome when the claim term fails…
Read MoreWhat is a means-plus-function claim limitation?
A means-plus-function claim limitation is a claim element that uses the term “means” (or “step”) and is coupled with functional language, without reciting specific structure to perform the function. These limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As stated in the MPEP: “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a…
Read MoreWhat is required for a specification to support a means-plus-function limitation?
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states: “The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the…
Read MoreWhat is a single means claim and why is it problematic?
A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of the claim. These claims are problematic because they cover every conceivable means for achieving the stated result. The MPEP explains: “The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the…
Read MoreWhat are “nonce” words in the context of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?
“Nonce” words in the context of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are generic terms that typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid invoking means-plus-function treatment. The MPEP 2181 provides examples of such words: “Examples of generic terms (nonce words) include “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus…
Read MoreHow are computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations interpreted?
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states: “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“ A general-purpose computer is not sufficient…
Read MoreWhat is the “algorithm requirement” for computer-implemented functions under 112(f)?
The “algorithm requirement” for computer-implemented functions under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) refers to the need for the specification to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. As stated in MPEP 2181 II.B: “[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose…
Read More